4 ms·

If your laptop doesn't have the cooling to support the maximum continuous performance of a CPU or GPU, how is that the chip-maker's fault? The chips offer you a

If your laptop doesn't have the cooling to support the maximum continuous performance of a CPU or GPU, how is that the chip-maker's fault? The chips offer you as much speed as possible under the power/cooling constraints - isn't that exactly what you want, as a user? I think the benchmark manipulation by Samsung is in a different class; it configures the system in an impractical mode that actually isn't available to the end user at all. In contrast, high-consumption turbo modes in laptop CPUs and GPUs really do benefit the end user, even if the benefit isn't everything you were hoping for.

macspoofing 13y ago
Yeah. I don't really care what the manufacturers show in their marketing material. As far as I'm concerned they are all biased and their numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. There is an ethical problem, however, if you try to game benchmarks used by independent agents. At the very least you should be transparent about what you're doing.
makomk 13y ago
I think you missed the part where in order to appear competitive with ARM, Intel are advertising their chips as having lower total power consumption and lower cooling requirements than are actually required to run them at full performance. They're then configuring them to throttle back in order to meet the advertised thermal figures.
- Lagged2Death 13y ago
  Maybe all this is shocking if you're not already familiar with the way CPUs are specified and the way they have dynamically adjusted their speeds and power consumption for many years now. ARM systems do the same tricks for the same reasons. Here an ARM CPU is throttled back to keep total system consumption below a target TDP, meaning it's impossible to achieve the rated CPU+GPU performance simultaneously. They are "configuring them to throttle back in order to meet the advertised thermal figures." http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/13 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showd... That just strikes me as good engineering. If the clocks were given simplistic hard upper limits to achieve the same ends (4W TDP limit in a system otherwise capable of consuming 8W), the result would be a less flexible, less powerful system. A waste, really. There is a real disparity between old-school absolute-maximum-TDP and realistic modern ultra-portable battery-powered use scenarios. Maybe Intel's SDP isn't the right answer, but it doesn't strike me as purely shady marketing malarkey either.

macspoofing 13y ago

Yeah. I don't really care what the manufacturers show in their marketing material. As far as I'm concerned they are all biased and their numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. There is an ethical problem, however, if you try to game benchmarks used by independent agents. At the very least you should be transparent about what you're doing.

makomk 13y ago

I think you missed the part where in order to appear competitive with ARM, Intel are advertising their chips as having lower total power consumption and lower cooling requirements than are actually required to run them at full performance. They're then configuring them to throttle back in order to meet the advertised thermal figures.

Lagged2Death 13y ago
Maybe all this is shocking if you're not already familiar with the way CPUs are specified and the way they have dynamically adjusted their speeds and power consumption for many years now. ARM systems do the same tricks for the same reasons. Here an ARM CPU is throttled back to keep total system consumption below a target TDP, meaning it's impossible to achieve the rated CPU+GPU performance simultaneously. They are "configuring them to throttle back in order to meet the advertised thermal figures." http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showdown/13 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6536/arm-vs-x86-the-real-showd... That just strikes me as good engineering. If the clocks were given simplistic hard upper limits to achieve the same ends (4W TDP limit in a system otherwise capable of consuming 8W), the result would be a less flexible, less powerful system. A waste, really. There is a real disparity between old-school absolute-maximum-TDP and realistic modern ultra-portable battery-powered use scenarios. Maybe Intel's SDP isn't the right answer, but it doesn't strike me as purely shady marketing malarkey either.